Your Humble Scribe

Thursday, July 29, 2010

WikiLeaks.

By now anyone not living under a rock has heard that the Internet whistle-blower site called WikiLeaks was provided several tens of thousands of pages of US military documents relating to Afghanistan which it promptly published for all to read on the World Wide Web.

The little dacoit who runs WikiLeaks -- one Julian Assange -- piously asserted that all the documents had been checked to make sure that names were not named that would put people in mortal jeopardy.

I just retired from a job with a .gov department. I have to say that based on my experience I don't believe that ole Manning operated by himself. That is to say in my experience even granted the level of clearance Manning carried, he would not have had access to all of the files on the classified system that he supposedly leaked. Sumptin' smells a little fishy here.

I have noticed that many members of the media and the left unintentionally let their inner foulness poke through at odd times, usually with off the cuff comments and interviews.

When he said all names were eliminated of people who could be incriminated, he most likely meant just that, down to his rotten core. It never would have occurred to him or them that maybe, just maybe, the afghan nationals working with the usa are people also. Therefore going through and redacting their names would just be a pontless expense of time and money. tally-ho, eh?

I am a new reader. I cannot remember which blog I stumbled through, sorry. I have spent the past week reading the archives and laughing and crying. Anymore Big Momma and her semi-precious jewel stories? When and where can I get the book? Each time I think I picked a favorite, another pops to the front of the line. You are a very lucky man to have such funny and interesting characters in your life and also lucky for the gift of gab to get them down just right.

Oh, I should have said hi earlier, but I was busy reading. Yesterday in the used book store I found the first Sten book by alan cole and chris bunch and picked it up, it was great! and also bought MHI online and I am about to jump into it now. I figured with your writing ability, and your enjoyment of Jim Butcher and Terry Pratchett, lets just give mr correia a whirl.

Apparently, he's been identified and he confessed to how it was done. Now, the trick is to make him the first US Soldier executed for treason or espionage in however many years it has been. Trust me, you aren't hearing much from the ranks, but there is fairly unanimous about how this should turn out.

Any "blood of innocents" that was spilled by this revelation is a tiny portion of a drop in the gigantic bucket of innocent blood that has been spilled by wrongly-guided military misadventurism by the last three administrations, and continued by the current administration.

The best way to avoid shedding innocent blood, is to stop waging war as a "police action", as we're currently doing.

FYI, I "support the troops": our son and daughter-in-law, both U.S. Army combat medics in the same armored cavalry regiment, deploy in three weeks, and I pray fervently for their safety. I don't want to stop the war because our kids are exposed to risk, I want to stop the war because it places everyone's kids at risk.

If any action revealed by wikileak resulted in innocent deaths, the problem wasn't the leak: it was the action.

Basically, the WikiLeaks dude believes that government secrecy is bad. it all stems from that.

The funny thing is that it is the same form of thought that people (staunchly) opposed to govt. health care, gun control, environmental regulation or educational mandates have: namely, that the government is not all that trustworthy, efficient or competent.

History here is rather divided. Some people can point to the Pentagon Papers, where the American public were finally informed of exactly what they were sending their troops to do (and thus helped end the war) and the Crimean War telegraph (same basic idea, just in Europe), others point to things like the Windtalkers, Alamo project or Washington's spy ring, which all more or less helped save our nation.

The Wikileak's founder here is honestly pretty close to the central, "reasonable people can differ" point of the argument. The American who leaked the documents is pretty solidly in the "treason in time of war/death by firing squad" spectrum.

If the American truly believed this information was important enough to die for, then he did what a soldier should: give his life for his country. If he was wrong, he should get what any other traitor gets: his life confiscated by his country.

Also, I should just point out that my perspective is warped. I have been a soldier (and did not betray classified info) and lived for many years in "Little Siagon," the area in Oklahoma City where most of the people who sided with us in Vietnam were resettled.

I assume (hope) that our current admin will do what previous admins did and evacuate our allies before reprisals, and let them set up a small business and raise a family in the grain belt of the USA. These folk risked their lives for us BEFORE the wikileak; they accepted the idea they could be caught from day 1. That's gotta be worth a few seats on the next Air Force flight out and a few bucks for a dry cleaner shop or some such thing.

KBCraig - Any "blood of innocents" that was spilled by this revelation is a tiny portion of a drop in the gigantic bucket of innocent blood that has been spilled by wrongly-guided military misadventurism...

Two wrongs don't make a right. I find abhorrent your assertion that we should shrug off the lives of the people put at risk by the Wikileaks because of a greater good. The sloppy redaction of selected parties indicates the publisher of these documents has a cavalier and myopic concept of justice. Further, I expect same has delusions of grandeur and thinks when the powers-that-be are deposed, then he will be among the plinth of the New Establishment. Intent is irrelevant-- if his actions resulted in the deaths of innocents, then he is as guilty as those he seeks to impugn.

KBCraig, you missed much of the point but then it seems within your political world view to do that. The level of redaction is a large part of the concern. The redaction itself was done with a particular political intent under the guise of "Protecting the innocent". WIKILeaks will have blood on its hands WHEN reprisals are undertaken against our allies. The human slug or slugs that provided the information commited treason: actions against the government of the United States in secret to undermine it. Execution is to pleasant an outcome for them.

Agreed... WSF, Keelhauled is the term you're looking for... This sumbitch thinks there should be NO classified, everything open and above board, yet I don't see anything coming out from Russia, or China, or North Korea... Personally, I wouldn't even waste a trial; just cap his ass and be done with it. Somebody else steps up, cap HIS ass, rinse/repeat as necessary.

The government is ultimately accountable to the people, but how can the people be informed about critical issues facing them today when the government classifies, restricts, and otherwise controls information, particularly information about itself? The public has a right to know.

Yes, there's certain information that is vital to national security, and should be kept private, but other information may be restricted simply because it makes the government look bad. This is, in my belief, wrong, and should come to light (perhaps after a short period of time, so as not to affect immediate operational security).

Legally, whoever leaked the information is likely in the wrong (though I'm not a lawyer). If they're found, they're likely to suffer significant punishment, though I suspect they knew that going into this whole mess.

Ethically, I don't think either Wikileaks nor the leaker is in the wrong, and that's coming from someone who's ex-military.

Among other things, the leaked documents indicate that the Pakistani intelligence service was colluding with the Taliban; this could have serious ramifications on US public support for the war, as well as a lot of political fallout. I consider that a good thing, as it sheds more light on a major, sensitive issue.

I entirely concur with your assessment. Treason is either the act of waging of war against one's country, or the act of giving aid and comfort to one's enemies.

As the author of Wikileaks basically conducted both against his native land of Australia, I will leave him to his nation's tender mercies.

As it appears that the one who 'leaked' the government documents was a PFC/computer analyst with the U.S. Army, I would suggest military trial under the Uniform Military Code for treason, and execution by firing squad.

As keelhauling is a Navy tradition, I would suggest flogging through the fleet instead before execution.

A pity, though, that since the traitor's superiors permitted him to download the documents in question via a CD player/recorder, if this is any example of the efficiency and intelligence of the Army's line of command, they will manage to execute him by a circular firing squad.

KBCraig said..."The best way to avoid shedding innocent blood, is to stop waging war as a "police action", as we're currently doing."

This I can sort-of get behind, police action is just a fancy way of saying "too frightened of public opinion to commit to a course of action". If your enemy strikes you you strike him back, if he does not indicate a willingness to cease hostilities and apologize immediately, you stomp a mudhole in his ass.

KBCraig said..."FYI, I "support the troops": our son and daughter-in-law, both U.S. Army combat medics in the same armored cavalry regiment, deploy in three weeks, and I pray fervently for their safety."

I will take you at your word that you have kin serving and about to be deployed to a combat zone.

The rest of your post's content indicates to me that you are a base coward, and a fool. Much of the content of D. Fisher's post also indicates foolishness.

Did anyone seriously believe that Pakistan was not colluding with the Taliban?

Woah hey now, lets take a step back here. I don't think anyone has said that it was justified, merely that is has its causes. And he's right, since WWII we have not once finished any conflict we have either started or been a part of. For some reason the American public no longer has the desire, or the willpower to actually finish a conflict. So instead, we send our troops, they fight, they die and eventually we get bored and pull out, sometimes leaving a cursory presence, all while allowing our enemy to retreat, lick his wounds and attend meetings with other "wronged" dictators and despots.

We have no sense of finishing what we've started, and all too often find ourselves arming our own enemies.

Until we have the resolve to finish the things we start, we should indeed stop such foolish and misguided police actions, as we only make things worse for ourselves.

9/11 did not happen because we have troops in the ME. Read what the organizers behind it say publicly. We were attacked because we are the biggest and the baddest standing in the way of Islamic world domination. The WTC was targeted because it is symbolic of the West's power and prestige.We could retreat behind our oceans and they would attack us anyway, and unlike past history, if we go full isolationist this time, these ass holes can and will follow us home.

Screw the firing squad or Constitutionally-prescribed hanging--I can't be the only one who would gladly strangle this traitor with bare hands... okay, with rubber gloves--don't wanna get any of whatever excrement he's made of on me.